Cook didn’t disobey an order. The order was rescinded before its effective date had been reached.
And another thing. What’s at issue here is not just the legitimacy of “some superior officer” in the chain of command, but the legitimacy of the COMMANDER IN CHIEF! The potential for disaster is INFINITELY higher in this case, as it would be if we were talking about even a General or Admiral.
Why isn’t his firing on Drudge? Anyone know?
Any further info on way his orders were pulled?
There were soldiers who firmly believed in 2001 that Bush had not been legitimately elected. They believed that Bush had stolen it.
Should they, also, have been able to disregard orders because Bush was “COMMANDER IN CHIEF!” and “the potential for disaster [was] INFINITELY higher”? What happened to the soldiers who refused to participate in the Iraq invasion, or go back for additional deployments? There traditionally has been no sympathy here for officers who refuse their deployments. You can easily search FR and find numerous threads where the firm group conviction was “court-martial him and make him pound rocks.”
What makes this case different from those?